lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Apr]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: sched_yield proposals/rationale
Mark Lord wrote:
> Buytaert_Steven@emc.com wrote:
>>> From: Bill Davidsen
>>>
>>> And having gotten same, are you going to code up what appears to be a
>>> solution, based on this feedback?
>>
>> The feedback was helpful in verifying whether there are any arguments
>> against my approach. The real proof is in the pudding.
>>
>> I'm running a kernel with these changes, as we speak. Overall system
>> throughput is about up 20%. With 'system throughput' I mean measured
>> performance of a rather large (experimental) system. The patch isn't
>> even 24h old... Also the application latency has improved.
>
> Cool. You *do know* that there is a brand new CPU scheduler
> scheduled to replace the current one for the 2.6.22 Kernel, right?
>
Having tried both nicksched and Con's fair sched on some normal loads,
as opposed to benchmarks, I sure hope Linus changes his mind about
having several schedulers in the kernel. The "one perfect and
self-adjusting scheduler" isn't here yet.

--
Bill Davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com>
"We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from
the machinations of the wicked." - from Slashdot
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2007-04-17 21:47    [W:1.014 / U:2.144 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site